metroidfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Bilium
Since when has Bilium been known as Ooromine I? Rob 64 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Rob 64 :This is mostly fanon info can somebody clean up this page. MarioGalaxy {talk/ / } 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I thought so. I've never heard of half of the stuff happening here. Well, someone's put a lot of effort into this nonsense; the images look great. But yeah, the same goes for Ooromine II, and Twin Tabula. I feel like we need more people to agree before anyone cleans this article up, though. Same goes for the others. Rob 64 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Rob 64 Orbit This planet is the closest one to its sun, yet it seems to take a much longer time to orbit around it than every other planet with a much larger orbit. Is this possible in real life? It could be an interesting trivia.DIM87 22:47, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :Umm... you're saying that as though all planets share the same orbital velocity...? And they obviously do not, lol. The distance from the star only dictates the distance in which it must travel to complete a full elliptical revolution. However the actual velocity of which it is revolving dictates the amount of time the revolution will take (distance = velocity * time). For example, if planet A is 1.5x10^5km from a star and is orbiting at 3000km/h, and planet B is 3x10^5km from the star and is orbiting at double the velocity of planet A (6000km/h), then they will actually both circle the the star at the exact same rate, so in this case, because A is two times as close to the star as B: If A=revolution time of A, then: A = 2d(B)÷ν(B) --[[User:Piratehunter|''P''ir''a''te''h''un''t''er'']] {ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 23:08, November 5, 2010 (UTC) ::I always though the closest planet would take the shortest time to revolve around its star (not just because of our solar system).DIM87 23:27, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :::Like I said, Distance Formula: '''D=νt so... take the distance to travel, and divide it by the velocity, and you get the time it takes to travel. Use the scenario I used above (planet A and B). You have to have velocity to move and you have to have time to calculate into it. And both of those are variable... I don't see what you're not understanding. lol --[[User:Piratehunter|'''''Pi''r''at''e''hu''n''te''r]] {ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 23:42, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :::I do understand the formula, Im just saying that I though the closest would always be the fastest one.DIM87 23:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::If you completely got how i'm using it, you wouldn't still be questioning. lol --[[User:Piratehunter|P''ir''a''te''h''un''t''er'']] {ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 00:57, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::Im not questioning it lolDIM87 01:22, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Wow, you fail Piratehunter. :P [[User:The Exterminator|''The'' ''Ext''er''minator]] {ADMIN} (talk • • • • ) 01:49, November 6, 2010 (UTC) I'm not much on astrophysics, but my assumption would be that if a small planet was orbiting slow and close like this, it would have to have a particularly high density to keep an inertia that would save it from simply plummeting into the star. Then again, maybe it is plummeting, like Phobos to Mars, and the observatory simply isn't depicting it. ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 02:11, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :This isn't completely astrophysics really... well it is, but mainly just generic Classical mechanics. And to explain that CB, I would just say look up a diagram depicting gravity's effect of space (i'm sure you've seen it before; the gridface curved around a sphere (celestial body)). What you have to recognize is that everything in space is falling or "plummeting", as per the pushing effect brought on by the curvature of space against the object (brought on by gravity's distortion of space; ie. gravity doesn't actually pull anything). I'll admit, I'm not actually that big when it comes to macro-physics (my finesse is at the quantum level), but to shed at least some light, what you're mentioning, CB, is what keeps the curvature of space from simply pushing a celestial body into a star or other object... well, that's the same problem both Einstein, and later Hawking came across. One of them, I can't remember which, i think Einstein, suggested that there had to be an opposing force to gravity, such as dark matter, to keep objects apart, and keep space from collapsing into itself. So that really has no answer as of yet. My personal theory, although this isn't my field, is that what we recognize as empty space is actually a form of matter itself, possibly dark matter, not sure yet. This would mean that space actually then takes up... well, space :P But I digress... Aside from all this physics discussion, and how much I enjoy it, best to get back on track I guess ;) Oh and density has nothing to do with it. :P It's space, where everything is falling, and everything falls at the same rate... when dropped at the same time that is, or if it has been or is being propelled, which would greatly increase it's velocity until an outside force acts upon it ;) And shut up Ex :P --[[User:Piratehunter|''P''ir''a''te''h''un''t''er]] {ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 03:51, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :I'm going to be an astronomer when I grow up, so here's the details in a smaller paragraph. Our own Earth is moving away from the Sun slowly, which is why we need a Leap Year. We're moving away because we're moving a little too fast, like Deimos to Mars and our own Moon to us. Bilium WILL eventually fall into its star BECAUSE it needs speed to go around its star. Mercury is very close to our star, and there's some planets that take a day to orbit their stars, and they would be inside Mercury's orbit if they were in our Solar System. :Why does light exist? Heat. You need heat to get light, and to get heat you need friction and fast movement. Boil some water. The heat won't be visible, but water's molecules move slower when cold, and faster when hot. When heat is applied to water, it becomes a gas that we know as water vapor. :Back to orbits. Why don't we fall into our star? We are trying to move away at an angle. Because of this, instead of moving away straight in or moving straight away, we are moving in an eclipse. That's the basics. Come to my talk page for more information about astronomy if you want more info. 06:41, September 29, 2011 (UTC) Orbit Correction I'd like to point out that PirateHunter is wrong about the orbital period, and that DIM87 was actually correct. The orbital period of a planet around a star is strictly a function of its orbital radius (it's the limiting case of a Keplerian orbit where one body has near-infinite mass). Thus it is literally impossible for the planet Bilium to both have the closest orbit AND not have the shortest orbital period (ie, whoever it was that originally wrote that was an idiot). Thankfully, it appears that the section of the article that talked about the orbital period of Bilium has been deleted. 20:02, April 20, 2014 (UTC)DumpsterDoofus :I think that everyone got that he was just being contrarian. You can see it in his unnecessary insults and when he had done things like using an alternate definition of "plummeting" so he could pretend that he was explaing orbital mechanics to me, even though I'd provided a simple example of what I'd specifically meant. ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 23:32, April 20, 2014 (UTC) Bonus to illustrate what I'd said.: Orbital period is not directly tied to radius. http://sen.com/phil-plait/alien-worlds-extraordinary-and-mundane ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 21:36, May 2, 2014 (UTC)